Skip to main content

View Diary: Western Dems embrace Dean (318 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the wild wild west (none)
    You've got it wrong. The ideology that embraces all of your terms ("rugged individualism", "personal responsibility" and "fiscal responsibility") is exactly what we don't need. Allowing hunters in Montana or Idaho to own rifles is one thing. But we do not live in a world where individuals really make their own way. Each of us, even someone living on a ranch in a remote part of Montana or Idaho, is part of a network of people who co-produce the things and services we rely on. The hunter is able to hunt because of his gun, which he was able to acquire because of a complex labor network of factory workers, miners, truckers, clerks and technicians. The hunter's sense of independence and isolation is an illusion, and a dangerous one at that if it encourages him to support politicians whose polices wreak havoc on the environment and injure the workers whose exertions made his ownership of the gun possible. In the context of rugged individualism, personal responsibility means providing for oneself without counting on anyone else. This, too, is a preposterous fantasy. As already shown, the hunter is utterly dependent on others for his rifle. And this dependence obtains in every other area of his life, as well. In the world-view you suggest, fiscal responsibility means no decent social programs, because government would be confined to a tiny budget: The rugged individualist falsely regards taxes as a theft of economic resources which belong to the atomized individuals who single-handedly created them. Any sort of progressive taxation is especially offensive, since it penalizes the most those individuals whose ruggedness had enabled them to provide the most for themselves. In short, the vocabulary you have chosen suggests a belief-system more asinine than Creationism and much more pernicious.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site